dismissed EB-1A Case: Kyrgyz History And Culture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 9, 2024 In Re: 35392583 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner - a scholar of Kyrgyz history and culture - requests classification under the 
employment-based, first preference (EB-1) immigrant visa category as a noncitizen with 
"extraordinary ability." See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A). Successful petitioners for U.S. permanent residence in this category must 
demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" and extensively document recognition of 
their achievements in their fields. Id. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition. The Director found that the Petitioner 
met the requested category's evidentiary criteria. But the Director concluded that he did not 
demonstrate extraordinary ability in his field or his claimed intent to continue working in the field in 
the United States. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director overlooked evidence and that 
his recognition for his achievements in his field, in the aggregate, establish his extraordinary ability. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Exercising de novo appellate review, see Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 
2015), we conclude that, while he demonstrated his intent to continue working in his field in the United 
States, he has not established himself among that small percentage of scholars at the field's very top. 
We will therefore dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify as a noncitizen with extraordinary ability, a petitioner must demonstrate that they: 
• Have "extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics;" 
• Seek to continue work in their field of expertise in the United States; and 
• Through their work, would substantially benefit the country. 
Section 203(b)(1 )(A)(i)-(iii) of the Act. The term "extraordinary ability" means expertise 
commensurate with "one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Evidence of extraordinary ability must initially demonstrate a noncitizen's receipt of either "a major, 
international recognized award" or satisfaction of at least three of ten lesser evidentiary criteria. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i-x). 1 If a petitioner meets either evidentiary standard and the other statutory 
requirements, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCTS) must then make a final merits 
determination as to whether the record, as a whole, establishes their sustained national or international 
acclaim and recognized achievements placing them among the small percentage at their field's very 
top. Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 391 (5th Cir. 2022) (finding USCTS' two-step analysis of 
extraordinary ability "consistent with the governing statute and regulation"); see generally 6 USCIS 
Policy Manual F.(2)(B), www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Facts and Procedural History 
The record shows that the Petitioner, a Kyrgyzstani native and citizen, earned a bachelor's degree in 
history from a university in his home country. Turkish universities later awarded him a master's 
degree in history and a doctorate in general Turkish history. 
Besides presenting 42 papers at international conferences, the Petitioner states that between 2009 and 
2023, he wrote eight books and 35 articles regarding Central Asian history and culture. He has worked 
as: a proofreader, assistant editor, and editor at academic journals; an international political expert at 
a Turkish "think-tank;" and a partner/manager at an online magazine about Central Asian life and 
culture. The Petitioner is proficient in nine living and two ancient Turkish languages. From 2016 to 
201 7, he and four others translated, from the K r z to Turkish language, the 
_____________________ _ The final product consisted of three 
volumes totaling more than 3,000 pages, representing first complete translation into 
Turkish. 
The Petitioner states that, in the United States, he seeks to continue working in his field for a university, 
institution, or government. He specifically plans to continue comparing the language, history, 
and 
culture of the Kyrgyz and American Navajo peoples. 
The record does not demonstrate - nor does the Petitioner claim - his receipt of a major internationally 
recognized award. He therefore has to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i-x). The record supports the Director's findings that he satisfied three of the 
requirements: published material about him and his work in the field; his participation as a judge of 
others' work in the field; and his authorship of scholarly articles in his field. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (iv), (vi). 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he met another evidentiary criterion regarding receipt of lesser 
nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in his field. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i). But, because he has already met the minimum evidentiary requirements, we need 
not determine whether he satisfied another. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating 
1 If an evidentiary criterion does not "readily apply" to a petitioner's occupation, they may submit "comparable evidence" 
to establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
2 
that agencies need not make "purely advisory findings" on issues unnecessary to their ultimate 
decisions). 
We first review the Director's findings regarding the Petitioner's intent to continue working in his 
field in the United States. 
B. Intent to Continue Working in the Field 
To qualify for the 
requested immigrant visa category, a noncitizen must demonstrate that they "seek[] 
to enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability." Section 
203(b)(1 )(A)(ii) of the Act. Unlike other immigrant visa categories, the requested classification 
requires no job offer or certification from the U.S. Department of Labor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). But 
"clear evidence" must establish that, upon U.S. immigration, petitioners would continue to work in 
their fields. Id. Such evidence may include: 
• Letters from prospective employers; 
• Proof of "pre-arranged commitments," like contracts; or 
• Noncitizens' statements detailing their plans to continue their work in the United States. 
Id. 
In response to the Director's request for additional evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a letter 
from a research colleague stating that he would fund the Petitioner's work in the United States.2 The 
Petitioner also submitted a letter from the U.S. online magazine that previously employed him as 
partner/manager, offering him a job as director of editorial features. 
We disagree with the Director's reasons for discounting the evidence in the Petitioner's RFE response. 
But we agree that the materials do not demonstrate his intent to continue working in his field in the 
United States. 
A petitioner must demonstrate eligibility "at the time of filing the benefit request." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b)(1 ). The Petitioner filed his petition in May 2024. Evidence does not establish his receipt 
of his colleague's funding offer or the online magazine's job offer before the petition's filing date. 
The magazine's job-offer letter bears a June 2024 date, while the colleague confirmed his funding 
offer in a letter dated the following month. Thus, the evidence in the RFE response does not 
demonstrate the Petitioner's intent to continue working in his field in the United States at the time of 
the petition's filing. 
The only remaining evidence of the Petitioner's intent to continue working in his field in the United 
States is his statement included in the initial filing. Such a statement suffices if it "detail[ s] plans on 
how [the petitioner] intends to continue [their] work in the United States." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). 
The Petitioner stated that he wants: 
2 On appeal, the Petitioner states his acceptance of this funding offer. 
3 
to continue to use [his] historical knowledge, translation/interpretation, editing skills, 
and international relations expert experience in the United States by working in a 
university, government job, or institution. As a researcher, [he] would like to continue 
to focus [his] writing on the history, and culture of Central Asian nations. 
The Petitioner also stated his intent, in the United States, to continue researching "Kyrgyz-Native 
American commonalities" and to translate the first book he co-authored on this topic from Kyrgyz to 
English. He said he further wants "to establish cultural bridges between the Kyrgyz and Navajos." 
He states that he and the book's other co-authors have worked with Kyrgyzstani government officials 
to plan joint fairs and promotions for Kyrgyz and Navajo people. 
We find that the Petitioner's statement sufficiently details his U.S. work plans. Thus, he has 
demonstrated his intent to continue working in his field in the United States at the time of the petition's 
filing. We will therefore withdraw the Director's contrary finding. 
We next review the Director's final merits determination. 
C. Final Merits Determination 
At this adjudicatory stage, petitioners must demonstrate that they have sustained national or 
international acclaim and that their achievements have been recognized in their fields to an extent 
placing them among the small percentage who have risen to the fields' very top. 6 USCIS Policy 
Manual F.(2)(B)(2). 
In a final merits determination, USCIS considers "any potentially relevant evidence in the record, even 
if such evidence does not fit one of the ... regulatory criteria or was not presented as comparable 
evidence." Id. A petitioner must explain the evidence's significance and how it demonstrates their 
achievement of sustained national or international acclaim or recognition in their field. Id. A petition's 
approval or denial depends on the evidence's type and quality. Id. 
The Director found insufficient evidence of the Petitioner's favorable comparisons to others at his 
field's top and his purported acclaim. The Director stated: 
While you need not establish that there is no one more accomplished to qualify for the 
classification sought, we find the record insufficient to demonstrate that you have 
sustained national or international acclaim and are among the small percentage at the 
very top of the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that "the sum of his achievements and recognition" demonstrate 
his extraordinary ability in his field. He cites the following achievements: 
1. The Number of Citations to the Petitioner's Research 
The 
Petitioner provides evidence that, out of six leading scholars in his field, his research articles have 
received the fourth most citations. 
4 
2. The Petitioner's Selection to Translate the ____ 
But he submitted this evidence on appeal. If a petitioner received notice and a reasonable opportunity 
to provide evidence before a petition's denial, we generally disregard the evidence if later submitted 
on appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(11) (requiring submission of all requested evidence together at 
one time); Matter ofSoriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (declining to consider new evidence 
submitted on appeal where "the petitioner was put on notice of the required evidence and given a 
reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the denial"). 
The Director's RFE requested evidence that the Petitioner's articles "ha[ve] been widely cited" and 
"[r]esults from scholarly literature search websites." The Petitioner submitted these requested 
materials only on appeal and does not claim their unavailability at the time of his RFE response. We 
therefore decline to consider the new evidence on appeal. 
The record does not otherwise compare the Petitioner's citations to those of leading scholars in his 
field. He therefore has not documented this purported achievement. 
Even if we considered the Petitioner's evidence on appeal, it would not establish the claimed citation­
related achievement. The evidence shows that the list of the top six scholars in the Petitioner's field 
represents only one researcher's opinion. Others might rank different scholars in the field above the 
Petitioner. Also, the other scholars' work might have generated more citations than the Petitioner's 
work. Thus, the record does not establish that his research articles have received the fourth most 
citations among the top six scholars in his field. See section 20l(b)(l)(A) of the Act (requiring 
"extensive documentation" of recognized achievements). 
The Petitioner and four others began translating the from Kyrgyz to Turkish in 2016. 
The record establishes the ____________________ describing their 
history and traditions. In 2013, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural 
Organization added the In 
2017, Kyrgyzstan's then prime minister publicly described the as "[t]he climax of our 
heritage, and the pride of our nation." 
Based on this information, the Petitioner states: 
We can infer that [his] selection as one of five translators on a work of such public 
interest indicates that he is one of the few who have been recognized for having a 
superior understanding of Kyrgyz history and culture, in which is rooted. 
We decline to make that inference. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof. See Matter ofChawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. He submitted a letter from a deputy executive officer of Kyrgyzstanstating 
that, as the country's former consulate general in Turkey, the officer "initiated" theL__Jtranslation 
project. But the record does not indicate who selected the project's five translators or on what basis. 
The Petitioner therefore has not sufficiently demonstrated that his selection to translate the I I 
gained him significant recognition or acclaim in his field. See section 201 (b)(1 )(A) of the Act 
(requiring "extensive documentation" of recognized achievements). 
5 
3. The Petitioner's Receipt of Kyrgyzstan's "Certificate of Gratitude" 
The Petitioner contends that his 2017 receipt of Kyrgyzstan's "certificate of gratitude" for his work 
on the I Itranslation "points toward the national acclaim and recognition that he has received 
as a scholar of Kyrgyz history and culture." The record demonstrates that Kyrgyzstan's then president 
personally presented the certificate to the Petitioner at a ceremony before hundreds of people in Turkey 
gathered for the dedication of a monument to the I I Kyrgyzstan's deputy executive officer 
stated that the country does not award such certificates every year and that recipients are "individuals 
who have honored the nation with a service that promotes Kyrgyz culture or who have enhanced the 
country's prestige." 
The Petitioner's receipt of the certificate does not demonstrate his place among the small percentage 
at his field's top. A letter from another translator on thel !project states that all five of the 
project's translators received Kyrgyzstani certificates of gratitude. But the record does not establish 
that the project's other translators rank among the field's top scholars. Thus, the Petitioner's receipt 
of the same certificate does not establish his place among the small percentage of scholars at his field's 
top. 
4. The Petitioner's Newspaper Interview 
The 
Petitioner provided a copy of an 2024 interview with him in Kyrgyzstan's leading education 
and science newspaper. The newspaper's front page includes a photograph of the Petitioner, while 
the interview appears on page 7. 
The record shows that Kyrgyzstan's education and science ministry established the weekly newspaper 
in 1993 and distributes it to all public schools, libraries, and universities in the country. A 2017 survey 
ranked the publication's circulation as the fifth largest among Kyrgyzstani newspapers. The Petitioner 
states: "That [he] was interviewed by a major newspaper, whose special remit is education and 
science, and that the interview was so prominently featured, strongly suggests a high degree of 
recognition in the field." 
We agree that the Petitioner's newspaper interview reflects recognition of his achievements in his 
field. But he has not demonstrated that this recognition propels him to a place among the small 
percentage of scholars at his field's top. For example, the record does not indicate whether the 
newspaper has featured other scholars in his field. 
The Petitioner also submitted letters from other researchers in his field. Most of the letters repeat the 
Petitioner's accomplishments and make general assertions about him and his work. One letter cites 
his purported "ground-breaking" research on Kyrgyz-Mongol relations and the parallels between the 
Navajo and Kyrgyz cultures. The record, however, lacks sufficient detail and explanation regarding 
the significance of this research to the field and the Petitioner's roles in exploring these topics. 
For noncitizens with extraordinary ability, Congress intended to set "a very high standard." Proposed 
Rule for Employment-Based Immigrants, 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). Congress 
reserved this immigrant visa category "for that small percentage of [ noncitizens] who have risen to the 
very top of their field of endeavor." Id. 
6 
The record identifies the Petitioner as an accomplished and versatile Kyrgyz scholar who has received 
acclaim and recognition in his field. But his evidence, even in the aggregate, does not sufficiently 
place him among the small percentage of scholars at his field's very top. See Amin, 24 F.4th at 386 
(upholding USCIS' final merits determination that a petitioner "was not 'extraordinary' but merely 
very good"). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner demonstrated his intent to continue working in his field in the United States. But he 
has not established his claimed extraordinary ability in the field. We will therefore affirm the petition's 
denial. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7